



*• ^ ^ -.%w /\ \fgpv ^ v \ * W 

























^o 












°* •^•• , A 'V**^ 











W*y % « °". : /%. -.W-' /% °.W- : ^\, 




» • » 4 V 






















4 o 



* ,0n> • ESlLki^Kv, *' -J o 






V *V°» c* 







^o v t »^'^ 



V c» 



0> •J^W^o^"' "^ o 




» \^ •» V** .-^: \/ -•»■ %/ .'te- X/ •«"•- 









:*° ^ v -\ •: 



-0* c«""» ^C 



o. ♦*!*.»• A 



<. 



«. «> 















>V . . . M *P, 











*bV' 







.» .K 



IC 9136 



Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1987 



Survey of Nuisance and Biologically Active 
Dusts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines 



By P. J. Watson, D. Tallman, and J. E. Pahlman 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



Information Circular 9136 
•* 



Survey of Nuisance and Biologically Active 
Dusts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines 



By P. J. Watson, D. Tallman, and J. E. Pahlman 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
Robert C. Horton, Director 





Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 



Watson, Pamela J. 

Survey of nuisance and biologically active dusts in metal and nonmetal 
mines. 

(Information circular ; 9136) 

Bibliography: p. 13. 

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27; 9136. 

1. Mine dusts. 2. Mineral industries- Hygienic aspects. 1. Tallman. Daniel N. II. Pahlman. 
J. E. (John E.). III. Title. IV. Series: Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines) ; 
9136. 



TN295.U4 



[TN312] 



622 s 



[622'.8] 



86-607925 



CONTENTS 



Page 



1 


2 


3 


3 


3 


6 


13 


13 


14 


15 



Abstract 

Introduction 

Acknowledgments 

Analysis of dust hazards 

Problem determination matrix 

Matrix results 

Summary, conclusions, and recommendations 

References 

Appendix. — Summary of review of dust risks 

Bibliography 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Dust problem critical path flow chart 4 

2. Statistical pattern for dusts, fumes, metal dusts, and area files «. 5 

3. Frequency distribution versus hazard severity for A commodity totals, 

B contaminant totals, and C N > 50 comparing zero versus nonzero matrix 
values 6 

TABLES 

1. Mining commodities surveyed 7 

2. TLV's of Dusts and fumes studied 8 

Matrix values for — 

3. Area file contaminants 8 

4. Dusts file contaminants 9 

5. Fumes file contaminants 10 

6. Metal dusts file contaminants 10 

7. Mining commodities 11 

8. Dust or fume contaminants 12 

9. Mining commodities with highest matrix values 12 

10. Dust or fume contaminants with highest matrix values 12 

A-l. Dusts and fumes with potential health risks identified from the litera- 
ture survey 14 





UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED 


IN 


THIS REPORT 


cm 3 


cubic centimeter mg/m 3 




milligram per cubic meter 


jim 


micrometer mppcf 




million particles per 
cubic foot 


yg/m 3 


microgram per cubic meter 








ppm 




part per million 


mg 


milligram 







SURVEY OF NUISANCE AND BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE DUSTS IN METAL 

AND NONMETAL MINES 



By P. J. Watson, 1 D. Tallman, 2 and J. E. Pahlman 3 



ABSTRACT 

The objective of this study was to prioritize the potential risks 
nuisance and biologically active dusts and fumes present in metal 
and nonmetal mines. This was accomplished by ranking numerical 
values derived from a matrix formula calculation that took into ac- 
count dose, mine population, and sampling size. Data used in 
these calculations were obtained from the Mine Inspection Data Analy- 
sis System (MIDAS). The dusts determined to have the highest risk po- 
tential were quartz respirable particulates, mine dust, cristobalite 
respirable particulates, welding fume components, and nuisance respi- 
rable dust. Other dusts and fumes that were not ranked in this study, 
due to small sampling population, but which show a potential risk, in- 
clude asbestos, talc, hydrogen cyanide, organic compound dusts, arse- 
nic, metal dusts, and metal and nonmetal fumes. 



1 

'Mining engineer, Twin Cities Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN. 

2 Research chemist (now with Economics Laboratory, Eagan, MN). 
3 Supervisory physical scientist, Twin Cities Research Center. 



INTRODUCTION 



A major mission of the Bureau of Mines 
is to protect miners' health and improve 
their safety. Asbestos, coal, and silica 
dusts present high potential health risks 
to miners and thus have been studied by 
both Bureau and other researchers. There 
are many other dusts that could produce 
severe, chronic, and debilitating dis- 
eases. Some of these include iron oxides 
(especially in combination with radon 
daughters or other radioactivity), taco- 
nite (which contains an asbestos-like am- 
phibole), talc, beryllium, welding fumes, 
and wollastonite (a proposed asbestos 
substitute). 

Mining of metal and nonmetal ores can 
produce dusts that represent a health 
threat to miners. There exists a signif- 
icant historical perspective on the haz- 
ards of mine dust as related to health. 
Dusts in mines have long caused problems. 
Signs of pneumoconiosis in prehistoric 
bodies and anthracosis in Egyptian mum- 
mies have been observed. Only the low- 
liest Greek and Roman slaves were miners, 
since "condemnation to mining is almost 
as severe as the death penalty," accord- 
ing to Justinian (1_). 4 Even in those an- 
cient times, miners realized that dust 
was dangerous. According to Pliny, some 
miners tried to lessen the danger by 
covering their mouths with bladder 
skins (_1_). 

Mine dust problems have existed since 
mining began, but only recently have spe- 
cific health problems been linked with 
specific dusts. For example, in coal 
mining, continued exposure to respirable 
coal dust in excess of 2.0 mg/nr may lead 
to Black Lung or pneumoconiosis. Also, 
in both coal and noncoal mining opera- 
tions, exposure to dusts containing 
silica may lead to silicosis. Because of 
a concern about other possibly hazardous 
dusts and fumes present in current mining 
operations, the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Act of 1977 requires that the De- 
partment of Health, Education, and Wel- 
fare (HEW), now Health and Human Services 

^Underlined numbers in parentheses re- 
fer to items in the list of references at 
the end of this report. 



(HHS) prepare reports on the toxicity 
levels of chemical and physical agents 
found in mines, through its constituent 
agency, the National Institute for Occu- 
pational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Pur- 
suant to section 101 (a) (6) (b) of the 
Act, NIOSH prepared a document in 1979 
entitled "Mining Surveillance: Poten- 
tially Toxic Occupational Exposures" (2) 
that reviewed existing pertinent informa- 
tion on toxic chemical and physical 
agents found in mines, gathered from 
sources including Government agencies 
(such as the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) and NIOSH), private 
industry, universities, associations, and 
labor unions. 

Of the many agents identified during 
the 1979 review, 35 dusts, gases and 
fumes were identified at potentially tox- 
ic levels in mines. Dust is defined as 
"the loose terra applied to solid parti- 
cles predominantly larger than colloidal 
and capable of temporary suspension in 
air or other gases" O). Potentially 
toxic dusts identified were arsenic, as- 
bestos, benzoanthracene, benzopyrene, 
beryllium, chrysene, coal mine dust, eth- 
ylene glycol dinitrate, graphite, lead, 
perlite, silica, and talc. Benzoanthra- 
cene, benzopyrene, and chrysene were 
identified in diesel emissions. Fumes 
are "the solid particles generated by 
condensation from the gaseous state, gen- 
erally after volatilization from melted 
substances, and often accompanied by a 
chemical reaction such as oxidation" (_3). 
Potentially toxic gases and fumes identi- 
fied were ammonia, carbon monoxide, car- 
bon tetrachloride, hydrogen sulfide, mer- 
cury vapor, nitrogen dioxide, oxygen 
deficiency, nitroglycerine, perchloroeth- 
ylene, trichloroethylene, and welding 
fumes as containing arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nick- 
el, ozone, and vanadium. Other poten- 
tially hazardous agents identified were 
gamma radiation, heat, noise, and radon 
daughters. In general, the data base for 
this report was not extensive for many 
biologically active and nuisance dusts 
and fumes. Additionally, while several 
other dusts and fumes not mentioned in 



the NIOSH report exhibit very few respi- 
ratory hazards, they are described as 
irritating with reactions ranging from 
minor skin irritations to major skin 
diseases. These dusts include potash, 
wollastonite, nepheline, salt, and trona. 
The toxicity of substances present in 
these dusts and fumes has been assessed 
by NIOSH, American Conference of Govern- 
mental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and 
others, and criteria document levels have 
been determined for each substance. The 
presence of these toxic and/or hazardous 
substances in mine dusts at levels above 
the NIOSH criteria document levels may 
pose a threat to the health of mine per- 
sonnel. Once the levels of various dusts 
actually present in the mine work envi- 
ronment are defined and the degree of 
risk is assessed and prioritized, control 
technologies for reduction or elimination 
of that risk may be investigated and 



developed along with recommendations for 
future monitoring activities. 

The largest body of environmental data 
for mine workers is kept by MSHA. Once a 
substance is recognized to be a potential 
health risk and regulatory levels are es- 
tablished, compliance sampling is done by 
mine inspectors. These data are avail- 
able for computerized statistical analy- 
sis through MIDAS (4_). The objective of 
this study was to prioritize the poten- 
tial risks of biologically active and 
nuisance dusts and fumes present in metal 
and nonmetal mines. Biologically active 
dusts and fumes are those dusts and fumes 
that can react or interact with a biolog- 
ical system or function. Nuisance dusts 
are those dusts that are not presently 
believed to be a potential health risk, 
but nevertheless are an irritating nuis- 
ance in the mine environment. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The authors wish to express their ap- 
preciation to Dr. Patricia A. Gibson, 
vice president of the Family Practice 
Foundation of America, Kansas City, MO; 
the staff of the Herbert L. Huffington 
Memorial Library, Kansas City, MO; the 
staff of the Boeckmann Memorial Library, 
St. Paul, MN; and Dr. William H. A. 
Watson, retired family physician, 



St. Paul, MN for their valuable help in 
obtaining and understanding the medical 
resources. The authors would also like 
to thank Winthrop F. Watts, Jr., Indus- 
trial hygienist, Bureau of Mines, Twin 
Cities, MN, for his help in explaining 
the workings of the MIDAS computer 
system. 



ANALYSIS OF DUST HAZARDS 



PROBLEM DETERMINATION MATRIX 

After reviewing the medical references 
on potential dust exposures, in conjunc- 
tion with the published NIOSH hazards, 
the authors determined that development 
of a method for dust risk assessment 
ranking would be necessary. The appendix 
lists the medical literature surveyed in 
a bibliography. 

In order to determine whether a given 
dust in a given mining commodity was a 
potential risk, it was necessary to de- 
velop a method for ranking. This method 
took the form of a critical-path flow 
chart (_5), where each step in the process 
led through the path, giving a numerical 
value from MSHA or MIDAS data, to a final 



value which could then be compared with 
other values from different dusts and/or 
mining commodities. The major questions 
to be answered included 

o Does this particular dust or fume 
exist in this mining commodity? 

o How many miners does it affect? 

o What is the dose of this dust or 
fume in this mining commodity and how 
does it compare to the threshold limit 
value (TLV) from the ACGIH and the crit- 
ical document values from NIOSH? 

o What is the duration of exposure; 
(hours/day, years/lifetime?) 



o What is the health effect and degree 
of severity of the effect? 

o What are the mine population charac- 
teristics; (number of persons exposed?) 
This critical path flow chart was also 
concerned with process changes and 
inadequate data. Only existence, mine 
population, and dose (the first three 
factors above) were included in the ma- 
trix calculations, since this information 
was available from MIDAS and other MSHA 
sources. The matrix value was calculated 
by the formula 

V = (C/TLV) x (N,/N t ), 

where V = matrix value, 

C = dose of contaminant, mg/ra 3 , 

TLV = threshold limit value for 
the contaminant, mg/m 5 , 
from 1973 values, 

Nj = number of miners in commodity, 

and N t = total number of miners; 

N, and N t both from MSHA, 
based on 1984 figures. 

Figure 1 shows the flow chart. The aver- 
age geometric dose of contaminant was 
then obtained by dividing the dose of C 
by TLV. 

To answer the questions asked in the 
flow chart and complete the matrix, a 
survey of the data contained in the 
MIDAS was conducted (3)» As each ques- 
tion was answered for each commodity 
and/or contaminant combination using the 
MIDAS analysis data, the matrix could be 
filled in. As the matrix was completed, 
the variability in sampling frequency ap- 
peared to adversely affect potential haz- 
ard ranking. The contaminants recorded 
in MIDAS were separated into four group- 
ings called files: Area, Dusts, Fumes, 
and Metals. Figure 2 illustrates the 
sampling frequencies for the four files 
surveyed, which gives an idea of where 
sampling was concentrated and additional 
sampling could be recommended. Because 
of this uneven sampling distribution, a 
concern was expressed over biasing the 



Dust or fume 
to be studied 



Process chonge 




Totol number 
of miners (N t ) 



Determine matrix 

value by 
(C/TLV) .(Nj/N,) 



Value to matrix 



FIGURE 1.— Dust problem critical path flow chart. N is sam- 
ple frequency. 



data by a single, anomalously large con- 
centration value. This was a very real 
possibility since, often, a mine inspec- 
tor will sample more frequently in areas 
of known potential dust hazards. This 
nonrandom sampling technique, along with 
the practice of not sampling for all 
contaminants in every mine, could lead to 
some serious biasing problems in the 
technique of ranking used in this report. 
The matrix was set up with a summing 
function, where the sum of commodity val- 
ues considering all contaminants (Sj), 
the sum of contaminant values considering 
all commodities (S,), and the sum of both 
(Sj,.-) were all considered. This summing 
process allowed the bias of using all 
sample values to be demonstrated: Figure 
3A illustrates the bias when considering 
the commodity totals; figure 3B , the bias 




r- 


M>IOOO, 


2.7% 




r-N>3000, 2.7% 


/<^>5oo 

/ \6.8% 






N=0 \ 
13.5% 


N>IOO 
21.9% 








\6.8%/ 


N>IO 
15.1% 


N>0 / 
\I2.3% / 



Dusts 



Fumes 



N> 1000, 1.4% 




N>500, 2.7% 



N>500 ond N>3,000, 
both 0% 




N> 1,000 and N> 3,000, 
both 0% 



Metals 



Area 
FIGURE 2.— Statistical pattern for dusts, fumes, metal dusts, and area files. 



in contaminant totals; and figure 3c the 
bias when considering nonzero values for 
the total sample versus the N > 50 
sample. In all, there were 88 mining 
commodities tracked within MIDAS, but 
several of these commodities were in the 
mineral processing area, not actually 
mining the materials to be processed, 
leaving 75 commodities to survey. Of 
these 75 commodities, only 53 had sam- 
pling populations greater than 50 for at 
least 1 contaminant. Table 1 summarizes 
these 53 commodities with their standard 
industrial classification codes. The re- 
maining commodities were then analyzed 
for each of the contaminants contained 



within the files. Additionally, there 
are 134 different contaminants contained 
in all the files. Several of these 
contaminants, such as noise or oxygen 
content, were not considered in the ma- 
trix analysis since they do not relate to 
dust or fume hazards, which left 65 con- 
taminants to survey. Of these 65 contam- 
inants, only 24 had sampling populations 
greater than 50 for at least 1 commodity. 
Table 2 summarizes these 24 contaminants, 
giving MSHA code, file, and TLV informa- 
tion. As the matrix was completed, sev- 
eral interesting results became evident; 
these results are discussed below. 



100 
90 
80 



60 - 



1 1 


1 1 1 1 ^-, 










A 




- 




/ / 
/ / 
X / 

/ / 
/ / 






/ / 




N>50^ 


\ / / 






/ / 
/ / 






* \ 

/ ^-N total 
/ 




f ^ 


*' 


- 








/ .+ 






/ / 






/ / 






/I 




_ 


_/ / 






_S 1 






^^ / 






^ 1 






r / 




~ 


/ 






^/ 






1 i 


* Incnotlno, haiard 
i i i i 





LOG, Si 




« Incnauna, haiard 

-I I I I I l_ 



-4.5 -4.0 



-3.5 



-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 

LOG. Sij 



-1.5 -1.0 



Key 



N Sample frequency 

S| Sum over commodity 

S: Sum over contaminant 

S;, : Sum over both commodity and contaminant 



FIGURE 3.— Frequency distribution versus hazard severity for A, commodity totals, 6, contaminant totals, and 
C, N> 50 comparing zero versus nonzero matrix values. 



MATRIX RESULTS 

When the matrix was completed for the 
four files surveyed, values for each 
grouping could be compared. The individ- 
ual matrix values are summarized in table 
3 for area files, table 4 for dusts, 
table 5 for fumes, and table 6 for the 
metal dusts. Individual contaminants 
within all four files as well as the sep- 
arate mining commodities, could be 
ranked for risk potential with the result 



that the higher Che values were, the more 
potential for risk. High values in the 
matrix could relate to high contaminant 
concentration, large mining population, 
or a combination of both. The potential 
risk could be considered as serious, 
whether it resulted from a few miners 
being exposed to a high contaminant 
concentration (such as mercury, chromium 
fumes, or hydrogen cyanide) or a large 
mining population being exposed to a 
somewhat lower contaminant concentration. 



TABLE 1. Mining commodities surveyed 



Commodity 



SIC 1 code 



Commodity 

Clay , common 

Clay, ceramic 

Feldspar 

Magnesite 

Shale , common 

Barite 

Fluorspar 

Potash, soda, and boron. 

Potash 

Trona 

Sodium compounds 

Phosphate rock 

Salt , rock 

Lithium 

Gypsum 

Talc, pyrophylite 

Nonmetal minerals 

Asbestos 

Mica 

Pumi ce 

Vermiculite 

Alumina, mill 

Salt, evaporite 

Leonardite 

Cement 

Lime 



SIC 1 code 



Iron ore 

Copper ore 

Lead and/or zinc ore.... 
Gold lode and/or placer. 

Silver ores 

Molybdenum. 

Tungsten 

Uranium and/or vanadium. 

Uranium 

Beryl 

Oil shale 

Stone, dimension 

Granite, dimension 

Limestone, dimension.... 

Marble, dimension 

Sandstone, dimension.... 

Slate, dimension 

Traprock , dimension 

Limestone, crushed 

Granite, crushed 

Stone , crushed 

Marble , crushed 

Sandstone , crushed 

Slate, crushed 

Traprock, crushed 

Sand and gravel 

Clay, fire 



10110 
10210 
10310 
10410 
10440 
10615 
10617 
10940 
10941 
10992 
13111 
14110 
14111 
14112 
14113 
14114 
14115 
14116 
14220 
14230 
14290 
14291 
14292 
14293 
14294 
14410 
14530 



14550 
14590 
14593 
14595 
14596 
14720 
14730 
14740 
14742 
14743 
14744 
14750 
14760 
14791 
14920 
14960 
14990 
14991 
14994 
14997 
14998 
28191 
28991 
29900 
32410 
32740 



SIC - Standard Industrial Classification. 



Ranking the contaminants together pro- 
duced a listing for potential risks 
within each mining commodity (table 7). 



Table 8 summarizes the survey of the in- 
dividual contaminants considered through- 
out the mining industry. 



TABLE 2. - TLV's of dusts and fumes studied 
(Milligrams per cubic meter unless otherwise specified) 



Dust or fume 



MSHA identification 



Code 



File 



TLV 



Respirable mine dust 

Total mine dust 

Nitric oxide 

Hydrogen sulfide 

Sulfur dioxide 

Asbestos 

Talc, nonf ibrous 

Quartz, respirable particulat 
Cristobalite, respirable part 

Beryllium dust 

Arsenic dust 

Lead dust 

Welding fumes 

Aluminum oxide fumes 

Beryllium fumes 

Chromic acid fumes 

Cobalt fumes 

Copper fumes 

Iron oxide fumes 

Lead fumes 

Manganese fumes 

Nickel fumes 

Vanadium fumes 

Mixed contaminants 



es 

iculates. 



121 

123 

301 

305 

421 

501 

511 

525 

541 

613 

635 

701 

703 

709 

713 

715 

717 

721 

723 

727 

733 

743 

999 



Dust. . 
. . .do. 
Area. . 
• . .do. 
. . .do. 
Dust. . 
. . .do. 
. • .do. 
. . .do. 
Metal. 
. • .do. 
. • .do. 
Fumes. 
. . .do. 
. • .do. 
... do. 
. . .do. 
. . .do. 
. • .do. 
. • . do . 
. • .do. 
. . .do. 
. . .do. 
Area. . 



5 
10.0 
'30 
'20 
13 
2 2 
20 x 10 6 
4 10/%+2 
4 5/%+2 
5 2 
5 500 
5 150 
10.0 
10.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
10.0 
5 150 
5.0 
1.0 
0.05 



MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration. TLV Threshold limit value. 

parts per million. Fibers per cubic centimeter. 

Million particles per cubic foot. 

10 mg/m 3 divided by percent respirable quartz present +2 mg/ra 3 . 
5 Micrometers per cubic meter. 

TABLE 3. - Matrix values for area file contaminants 1 



Mining commodity 



Copper ore 

Lead and/or zinc ore.... 
Gold lode and/or placer. 

Limestone crushed 

Fluorspar 

Salt , rock 

Gypsum 

Nonmetal minerals 

Contaminant total 



N,/N t 



0.0609 
.0165 
.0350 
.1789 
.0008 
.0091 
.0060 
.0081 



MSHA 
code 
301 



ISP 
ISP 
0.0018 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 



.0018 



MSHA 
code 
305 



0.0006 
.0005 
.0004 
.0018 
.0004 
.0005 
.0001 
.0006 



.0049 



MSHA 
code 
421 



0.0006 
ISP 
ISP 
.0018 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 



.0024 



MSHA 
code 
999 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
0.0251 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 



.0251 



Total matrix 
value for 
commodity 



0.0012 
.0005 
.0022 
.0287 
.0004 
.0005 
.0001 
.0006 



.0342 



C/TLV Concentration/Thre 

ISP Insufficient sampl 

MSHA Mine Safety and He 

N|/N t Number of miners i 



shold limit value. 

e population; N < 50. 

alth Administration. 

n commodity/total number miners. 



TABLE 4. - Matrix values for dusts file contaminants 



Mining commodity 



Ni/N, 



MSHA 
code 
121 



MSHA 
code 
123 



MSHA 
code 
501 



MSHA 

code 

511 



MSHA 
code 
523 



MSHA 
code 
525 



Total matrix 
value for 
commodity 



Iron ore 

Copper ore 

Lead and/or zinc ore.... 
Gold lode and/or placer. 

Silver ores 

Molybdenum 

Tungsten 

Uranium and/or vanadium. 

Uranium 

Oil shale 

Stone, dimension 

Granite, dimension , 

Limestone, dimension. ... , 

Marble, dimension 

Sandstone, dimension. ... , 

Slate, dimension , 

Traprock, dimension 

Limestone, crushed 

Granite, crushed , 

Stone , crushed 

Marble , crushed 

Sandstone, crushed , 

Slate, crushed 

Traprock, crushed 

Sand and gravel.. 

Clay, fire 

Clay , common 

Clay, ceramic 

Feldspar 

Magnesite 

Shale , common 

Barite • 

Fluorspar 

Potash, soda, boron 

Potash 

Trona. 

Sodium compounds 

Phosphate rock 

Salt rock 

Lithium 

Gypsum 

Talc, pyrophylite 

Nonmetal minerals 

Asbestos 

Mica 

Pumice 

Vermiculite 

Alumina, mill 

Salt, evaporite 

Leonardite 

Cement 

Lime 

Contaminant total 



0.0460 
.0609 
.0165 
.0350 
.0140 
.0127 
.0013 
.0005 
.0165 
.0015 
.0011 
.0053 
.0038 
.0011 
.0017 
.0108 
.0003 
.1789 
.0235 
.0109 
.0036 
.0130 
.0008 
.0140 
.2324 
.0051 
.0433 
.0008 
.0020 
.0010 
.0043 
.0064 
.0008 
.0017 
.0073 
.0062 
.0079 
.0274 
.0091 
.0011 
.0060 
.0345 
.0081 
.0018 
.0016 
.0011 
.0014 
.0189 
.0017 
.0002 
.0543 
.0146 



0.0019 

.0022 

.0015 

.0012 

.0010 

.0005 

ISP 

.0000 

.0003 

ISP 

ISP 

.0001 

.0005 

.0005 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

.0171 

.0008 

.0006 

ISP 

.0003 

ISP 

.0008 

.0058 

.0002 

.0049 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

.0001 

.0003 

.0002 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

NR 

.0015 

ISP 

ISP 

.0007 

.0044 

.0006 

ISP 

ISP 

.0001 

ISP 

ISP 

NR 

ISP 

.0107 

.0022 



0.0921 
.0539 
.0083 
.0247 

ISP 

ISP 
NR 

ISP 
.0045 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 
.0051 
.0008 

ISP 
NR 

ISP 
.1667 
.0269 
.0099 
.0048 
.0147 

ISP 
.0134 
.1316 
.0044 
.0558 
.0004 

ISP 
.0009 
.0036 
.0079 
.0004 
.0019 
.0067 
.0100 
.0115 
.0280 
.0112 
NR 
.0060 
.0818 
.0079 
NR 

ISP 
.0010 

ISP 
.0069 
.0009 

ISP 
.0691 
.0109 



0.0017 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 

NR 

NR 
ISP 

NR 

NR 
ISP 

NR 
ISP 

NR 

NR 
ISP 
.0060 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 

NR 
.0019 
.0075 

NR 
ISP 

NR 
ISP 

NR 

NR 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 
ISP 

NR 

NR 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

.0057 

ISP 

.0007 

ISP 

ISP 

.0002 

ISP 

ISP 

NR 
ISP 

NR 



NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
0.0092 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 



0.0138 

.0261 

.0070 

.0179 

.0064 

.0088 

.0010 

.0002 

.0055 

.0006 

.0004 

.0032 

.0012 

ISP 

.0010 

.0048 

.0001 

.0474 

.0096 

.0060 

ISP 

.0085 

.0004 

.0056 

.0845 

.0034 

.0258 

ISP 

.0010 

NR 

.0024 

.0065 

.0004 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

NR 

.0046 

ISP 

.0003 

.0014 

.0162 

.0063 

ISP 

.0005 

ISP 

ISP 

ISP 

NR 

.0002 

.0159 

.0050 



0.0952 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 

ISP 
NR 

ISP 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
.0146 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 

ISP 
NR 



0.2047 
.0822 
.0168 
.0438 
.0074 
.0093 
.0010 
.0002 
.0103 
.0006 
.0004 
.0033 
.0068 
.0013 
.0010 
.0048 
.0001 
.2372 
.0373 
.0165 
.0048 
.0235 
.0004 
.0217 
.2294 
.0080 
.0865 
.0004 
.0010 
.0009 
.0061 
.0147 
.0010 
.0019 
.0067 
.0100 
.0115 
.0341 
.0112 
.0003 
.0081 
.1173 
.0294 
.0007 
.0005 
.0011 
.0002 
.0069 
.0009 
.0002 
.0957 
.0181 



.0610 



.8846 



.0237 



.0092 



.3499 



.1098 



1.4382 



NR Not reported. ISP Insufficient sample population; N < 50. 



10 



u 

4-> 

CO 



PQ 
H 



X 












•H 












S-i tj 


>N 










4J O 


4-J 


i — ( 


ON 


•j <f 4 n vo s n 


m 


CO M-( 


•H 


ON 


CO 


m O t>» -tf 00 P-» — i 


oo 


e 


X 


r—( 


i—i 


o o m o — « o — < 


co 


CO .-l 


O 
6 

e 


o 


o 


o o o o o o o 


rH 


o 








4-1 CO 


O 










o > 


U 










H 
















m 


o 


CM Cu 00 Cu CU O Cu 


in 


< CD 




o 


o 


O CO -n CO CO O CO 


CM 


Ed X 


m 


o 


o 


O I— 1 O I— 1 )— I O M 


o 


CO O 


<r 


o 


o 


o o o 


o 


S o 


i*» 


• 

o 


• 


• • • 


• 






o 


o 


cu cu oo cu cu cu m 


CO 


< <u 




o 


o 


CO CO — I CO CO CO O 


CM 


m x 


ro 


o 


o 


M M O M M M O 


o 


CO o 


CO 


o 


o 


o o 


o 


s o 


r^ 


• 

o 


• 


• • 


• 






U~> 


Cu 


CM CU v© CU CU CO CU 


nD 


< <u 




o 


CO 


O CO CO CO CO O CO 


<■ 


Ed x) 


r-» 


o 


H-1 


O M O M M O M 


o 


co o 


eg 


o 




o o o 


o 


S o 


r^ 


o 












m 


cu 


oo cu oo cu cu cu cu 


1—1 


< cd 




o 


CO 


^-< CO —I CO CO CO CO 


<r 


X X 


en 


o 


M 


O M O M M M M 


o 


CO O 


cm 


o 




o o 


o 


S o 


r^ 


• 

o 




• • 


• 






oo 


sr 


n <r st » o co>o 


ON 


<J 0J 




CM 


CM 


O O in o r^ o — h 


f— 1 


EC X 


.— 1 


o 


o 


o o o o o o o 


CM 


co o 


CM 


o 


o 


o o o o o o o 


o 


S o 


r^ 


o 












m 


CM 


cm cu oo cu cu co m 


m 


< <y 




o 


i—i 


O CO — i CO CO o o 


<J- 


X X 


r^ 


o 


O 


O M O I— I t-i o o 


o 


CO O 


i — i 


o 


o 


o o o o 


o 


2 o 


r^ 


• 

o 


• 


• • • • 


• 






o 


o 


CU CU O CU CU CM CU 


CM 


< CD 




o 


o 


CO CO O CO CO CM CO 


CM 


Ed x 


m 


o 


o 


l-t M O 1— 1 M O M 


o 


CO o 


-H 


o 


o 


o o 


o 


S o 


r>» 


• 

o 


• 


• • 


• 






<r 


vO 


co cu m cu cu oo vo 


CM 


< CD 




. — i 


o 


O CO CM CO CO O '-i 


r~. 


32 X 


m 


o 


o 


O M -^ (-1 I— I O O 


~-l 


CO O 


i — i 


o 


o 


o o o o 


o 


S o 


r^ 


• 

o 


• 


• • • • 


• 






o 


o 


CU CU 00 cu cu cu cu 


00 


< <u 




o 


o 


CO CO — < CO CO CO CO 


i — ) 


Ed x) 


ON 


o 


o 


M M O t-l M M M 


o 


CO o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


S o 


r-~ 


o 


• 


• 


• 






o 


v£> 


O CU 00 Cu O CO o 


r^ 


<; cd 




o 


o 


O CO — I CO o o o 


CM 


Ed X 


co 


o 


o 


O i-l O (-1 o o o 


o 


CO o 


o 


o 


o 


o o o o o 


o 


S o 


r^ 


• 

o 


• 


• • • • • 


• 






ON 


1— < 


O CU i— ■• ON o o ~^ 


1^ 


<t! <u 




CM 


ON 


cm co in co — * co r^ 


>a- 


Ed x) 


r-> 


.— 1 


o 


O M CM O — t O O 


r~> 


CO o 


O 


o 


o 


o o o o o o 


o 


S <-> 


r-~ 


• 

o 


• 


• • • • • • 


• 






o 


ON 


m o on o ~3- -^ co 




-h 




v£> 


o 


no -* co <■ cm r^. <■ 




z 




<r 


vO 


i— i — i r^ •— i co cm m 




z 




o 
o 


o 


O O ^h O CM O O 


















• ••••• 


■-H 


>. 








• ^ • • • • co 


4-1 








. CD X> • • • *-> 


•H 








O • X OJ • • • o 


X 








C • CO £: rH . . 4J 


O 








•H • 3 CO CD ^ • 


x 








N • tJ 3 > O • 4J 


O 








• O «-( CO O • c 


a 








U CO O U U • CO 


a 






CD 


O CD ~ 00 • C 


o 






u 


U CD « CD • -H 


o 






o 


■3 o c j^ xi *j • a 

C O O C CO • CO 


bO 




o 


1-1 


(0 U4JOC0X4J4-I 


C 






CD 


• cd co t-i ace 


•H 




C 


O«XcD>CDCXXC0cDO 


C 




o 


a 


copiHacocoao 


•H 




u 


o 


CDO-H-Hl-iCOJdCD 


as 




H 


u 


,J CO kJ H CO CU CJ 





4-1 O 



IM 

3 

c 



C 
CO 

c 

•H 

e 

CO 

4-1 

c 
o 

CJ 



CO 

3 
X) 



CO 
4-> 

OJ 

B 

u 

o 



u 

4-> 

CO 



< 



O 4-> 

M-l — i 

X3 

CD O 

3 a 

.-H a 

CO o 

> o 



< OJ 

Ed x> un 

co o co 

S OvO 



< CD 

X X) CO 

CO o — < 

S cj no 



< CD — i 

X x) -o- 
co o m 



z~ 



>N 

4-1 

T-I 

XI 

o 

a 
a 
o 

CJ 

bO 
C 



in co cm — i 

in cm o 

o o o o 

o o o o 



CO CO CM 

m cm 

o o o 

o o o 



CM CU CU 

O CO CO 

O •-• M 

o 



CU CU Cu O 
CO CO CO o 
M l-l l-l O 



m o o in 

vD m -j o 

-H CO -H O 

o o o o 



u 

CD 
CJ 

CD CO 

u — 

o a. 

CJ i-l 

c o 



XI 

c 

CO 

OJ 
XJ 

o 



o c 

OJ 



O -H 
O CO 



^H C 

>N O 

t-i CJ) 
CD 



X 
CD 

4-1 

i-l 
o 
cu 

CD 

i-l 



TABLE 7. - Matrix values for mining commodities 



11 



Rank 



Mining commodity 



Value 



Rank 



Mining commodity 

Potash 

Shale , common 

Slate, dimension 

Marble , crushed 

Granite, dimension 

Potash, soda, boron..... 

Fluorspar 

Marble , dimension 

Pumi ce 

Tungsten 

Sandstone, dimension.... 

Feldspar 

Magnesite 

Salt, evaporite 

Asbestos 

Oil shale 

Mica 

Stone , dimension 

Slate, crushed 

Clay, ceramic 

Lithium 

Uranium and/or vanadium. 

Vermiculite 

Leonardite 

Beryl 

Traprock, dimension 



Value 



i • • • • 

Z • # • • 

J * m m • 

*4 • • • • 
3 • • • • 

6. • • • 
/ • • • • 
8« • • • 

10... 

11... 

12... 
13... 
14... 
15... 
16... 
17... 
18... 
19... 
20... 
21... 
22... 
23... 
24... 
25... 
26. . . 
27... 



Limestone, crushed 

Sand and gravel 

Iron ore 

Talc, pyrophylite. 

Cement 

Copper ore. 

Clay, common 

Gold lode and/or placer. 

Phosphate rock 

Granite, crushed 

Nonmetal minerals 

Traprock , crushed 

Lead and/or zinc ore.... 

Sandstone, crushed 

Lime 

Stone , crushed 

Barite 

Salt, rock 

Molybdenum 

Sodium compounds 

Uranium 

Trona 

Gypsum 

Clay, fire 

Silver ores 

Alumina, mill 

Limestone, dimension.... 



0.3233 
.2480 
.2238 
.1173 
.1070 
.0973 
.0865 
.0513 
.0418 
.0373 
.0300 
.0264 
.0242 
.0235 
.0181 
.0165 
.0147 
.0117 
.0115 
.0115 
.0103 
.0100 
.0082 
.0080 
.0078 
.0069 
.0068 



28... 
29... 
30... 
31... 
32... 

J J« » t 

34... 
35... 
36. . . 
37... 
38. . . 
39... 
40... 
41... 
42... 
43... 
44... 
45... 
46... 
47... 
48... 
49... 
50... 
51... 
52... 
53... 



0.0067 
.0061 
.0048 
.0048 
.0033 
.0019 
.0014 
.0013 
.0011 
.0010 
.0010 
.0010 
.0009 
.0009 

1 .0007 
.0006 
.0005 
.0004 
.0004 
.0004 
.0003 
.0002 

'.0002 
.0002 
.0001 
.0001 



'Changing the threshold limit va 
crease th^ matrix value and theref 



lue to 0.2 fibers/cm 3 from 2 fibers/cm 3 
ore result in a higher rank. 



would in- 



12 



TABLE 8. - Matrix values for dust or 
fume contaminants 



TABLE 9. - Mining commodities with 
highest matrix values 



Rank 



1.. 
2.. 

3.. 

4.. 
5.. 
6.. 
7.. 
8.. 
9.. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 



Dust or fume 



Total mine dust , 

Quartz, respirable 

particulates. 
Cristobalite, respirable 

particulates. 

Welding fumes , 

Respirable mine dust..... 

Mixed contaminants 

Asbestos ■ 

Iron oxide fumes , 

Chromic acid fumes , 

Talc nonf ibrous 

Lead dust , 

Hydrogen sulfide , 

Manganese fumes , 

Copper fumes , 

Lead fumes , 

Aluminum oxide fumes.... , 

Vanadium fumes 

Sulfur dioxide 

Nickel fumes 

Cobalt fumes 

Nitric oxide 

Beryllium fumes 

Arsenic dust 

Beryllium dust 



Value 



0.8846 

.3499 

.1098 
.0747 
.0610 
.0251 
.0237 
.0219 
.0172 
.0092 
.0088 
.0049 
.0046 
.0045 
.0041 
.0027 
.0025 
.0024 
.0023 
.0022 
.0018 
.0018 
.0002 
.0001 



Comparison of the matrix values pre- 
sented several areas of potential risk. 
Mining commodities with the highest abso- 
lute matrix values are summarized in 
table 9. These commodities range from me- 
tals (copper, gold lode — placer, and 
lead — zinc), to stone products (crushed 
limestone and sand and gravel), to sev- 
eral unique mining commodities (common 
clay, phosphate rock, talc, and cement). 
The high values came from contributions 
from all four file areas. The area file 
contribution came mainly from hydrogen 
sulfide, which was commodity specific, 
e.g. , phosphate and fluorspar. Dust file 
contributions included respirable mine 
dust and quartz respirable particulates. 
Additional values came from cristobalite 
respirable particulates. The highest 
values for the fumes files came from 
welding fumes and individual components 



Commodity 



Limestone, crushed.... 

Sand and gravel 

Iron ore 

Talc, pyrophylite 

Cement 

Copper ore , 

Clay, common , 

Gold, lode and placer. 
Phosphate rock , 



Value 



0.3233 
.2480 
.2238 
.1173 
.1070 
.0973 
.0865 
.0513 
.0418 



TABLE 10. - Dust or fume contaminants 
with highest matrix values 



Dust or fume 

Total mine dust 

Quartz, respirable particulates 
Cristobalite, respirable 

particulates 

Welding fumes 

Respirable mine dust 



Value 



0.8846 
.3499 

.1098 
.0747 
.0610 



of welding fumes such as aluminum oxide, 
chromic acid, copper, iron oxide, lead, 
and vanadium. Lead dust, another 
commodity-specific dust, was the major 
component of the metal dust files. Table 
10 summarizes the contaminants with the 
highest values summed throughout the en- 
tire raining industry. These contaminants 
are mainly dusts, with one exception. 
Their ranking order was quartz respirable 
particulates, total mine dust, cristo- 
balite respirable particulates, welding 
fumes, and respirable mine dust. Cristo- 
balite respirable particulates and weld- 
ing fumes affected very few commodities, 
yet still ranked very high in order of 
potential risk and may bear closer scru- 
tiny in future research. 

Although the dusts and fumes identified 
in both the literature search and the 
NIOSH report are described as potential 
risks, only those dusts and fumes that 
are currently being regulated showed up 
in the matrix as potential risks, proba- 
bly due to the sampling frequency bias 
mentioned earlier. 



13 



SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



Dust is a proven health risk in the 
mining industry. Many dusts, from less 
than 0.3 ym to greater than 10 um, will 
have an impact on the human system rang- 
ing from surface contact to respiratory 
infiltration. Individual dusts are known 
to cause medical problems ranging from 
mildly irritating, through debilitating 
(total disability), to fatal. 

The survey of the MIDAS data indicates 
that the proven dust risks are more thor- 
oughly monitored as well as studied. The 
dusts this ranking identified as having 
the highest risk potential are quartz re- 
spirable particulates, total mine dust, 
cristobalite respirable particulates, 
welding fumes, and respirable mine dust. 
Several of the dusts and fumes for which 
data are available in MIDAS, which may 
adversely impact miners' health, appear 
not to have been studied as thoroughly as 
those with known risks. Some of these 



other dusts and fumes not considered in 
this study, due to small sampling popula- 
tion, may have shown a potential risk if 
more samples in more commodities had been 
taken and recorded. These include asbes- 
tos, talc, cyanide (HCN), organic com- 
pound dusts, arsenic, other metal dusts, 
and metal and nonmetal fumes of all vari- 
eties (mercury, etc.). The potential 
health risks of these dusts and fumes are 
discussed in the references in the Appen- 
dix. Increasing sample frequency for all 
dusts and fumes considered, though time 
consuming and expensive, is recommended 
to allow more logical comparisons between 
dusts and across commodities. 

Additional areas for future considera- 
tions are cross contamination, additive 
effects of more than one dust present, 
and fugitive dusts. These are areas ripe 
for potential study, but which are lack- 
ing hard data. 



REFERENCES 



1. Morgis, G. G. , and S. J. Davenport. 
State Compensatory Provisions for Occupa- 
tional Disease. BuMines IC 7650, 1952, 
125 pp. 

2. U.S. Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare. NIOSH Mining Surveil- 
lance: Potentially Toxic Occupational 
Exposures. May 1979, 19 pp. 

3. Silverman, L. , C. E. Billings, and 
M. W. First. Particle Size Analysis in 
Industrial Hygiene. Academic, New York, 
1971, p. 301. 



4. Watts, W. F., Jr., D. R. Parker, 
R. L. Johnson, and K. L. Jensen. Analy- 
sis of Data on Respirable Quartz Dust 
Samples Collected in Metal and Nonmetal 
Mines and Mills. BuMines IC 8967, 1984, 
28 pp. 

5. Pugliese, J. M. , D. E. Swanson, 
W. H. Engelmann, and T. R. Bur. Quarry- 
ing Near Urban Areas: An Aid to Premine 
Planning. BuMines IC 8804, 1979, 50 pp. 



1A 



APPENDIX. —SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF DUST RISKS 



Many dusts exist in mines, but not 
all are harmful to a miner's health. Al- 
though NIOSH and ACGIH analyze the poten- 
tial health risks for dusts and set the 
allowable standards for those dusts in 
mines, dust control and assessment have 
long been Bureau concerns (1-13). Refer- 
ences 1 through 13 demonstrate some of 
the history of that concern. 

In order to develop a background for 
constructing the matrix, an extensive 
literature search was conducted in other 
areas of dust information besides 



historical bckground. These articles are 
listed in the bibliography at the end of 
the appendix. Health risks of some spe- 
cific dusts and fumes are covered in ref- 
erences 14 through 72 and are identified 
in table A-l with their specific refer- 
ence numbers. General health effects are 
discussed in references 73 through 96, 
while dust sampling techniques and gen- 
eral regulatory standards for dusts and 
fumes are discussed in references 97 
through 110 and references 111 through 
126, respectively. 



TABLE A-l. - Dusts and fumes with potential health risks identified from 
the literature survey 



Dust or fume 

Asbestos, including chrysotile 

Beryllium 

Coal 

Diatomite 

Fluorspar 

Gold 

Kaolin 

Iron, including taconite 

Magnetite 

Nepheline 

Phosphate 

Potash 

Salt 

Silica 

Slate 

Trona 

Welding fumes 

Wollastonite 



References 



18, 

19- 

15- 

24 

30 

21, 

14, 

17, 

52 

55 

60 

38 

56, 

20, 

37 

61 

63 

40 



20, 22, 25, 29, 31, 35, 47-49, 53, 54, 62, 66, 70 
20, 26, 33-34, 41, 44-45, 65, 72 
16, 22, 51, 59 



29, 50 71 

32, 46 

23, 27-28, 39, 42-43, 57-58, 64, 69 



68 
36, 67 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



15 



DUSTS-GENERAL 

1. Anderson, F. G. , and R. L. Beatty. 
Dust Control in Mining, Tunneling, and 
Quarrying in the United States, 1961 
through 1967. BuMines IC 8407, March 
1969, 50 pp. 

2. Anderson, F. G. , and R. L. Evans. 
Dust Control in Mining, Tunneling, and 
Quarrying in the United States, 1955 
through 1957. BuMines IC 8021, 1961, 
25 pp. 

3. Anderson, F. G. , R. L. Evans, and 
R. G. Peluso. Dust Control in Mining, 
Tunneling, and Quarrying in the United 
States, 1958 through 1960. BuMines 
IC 8130, 1961, 23 pp. 

4. Forbes, J. J., S. J. Davenport, 
and G. G. Morgis. Review of Literature 
on Dusts. BuMines B 478, 1950, 333 pp. 

5. Larson, W. C, and H. W. Zeller. 
Airborne Dust Assessment at Three Metal 
Mines, and a Silica Mine. BuMines 
TPR 94, Apr. 1976, 8 pp. 

6. Lundeen, A. M. Respiratory Pro- 
tection. Natl. Saf. News, v. 118, No. 1, 
1978, pp. 57-62. 

7. MSA Research Corporation. Control 
of Respirable Dust in Noncoal Mines and 
Ore Processing (contract H0220030). Bu- 
Mines OFR 17(2)-75, Apr. 30, 1974, 
98 pp.; NTIS PB 240646. 

8. Owings, C. W. Dust Control in 
Mining, Tunneling, and Quarrying in the 
United States. BuMines IC 7760, Oct. 
1956, 38 pp. 

9. Pugliese, J. M. , D. E. Swanson, 

W. H. Engelraann, and T. R. Bur. Quarry 
ing Near Urban Areas: An Aid to Premine 
Planning. BuMines IC 8804, 1979, 50 pp. 

10. Rodgers, S. J. Evaluation of 
Dust Sources and Control Techniques for 
Conventional Mining. Vol. I — Field 
Studies (contract J0100012, MSA Research 
Corp.). BuMines OFR 5(l)-85, Mar. 1983, 
59 pp.; NTIS PB 85-153328. 

11. . Evaluation of Dust Sources 

and Control Techniques for Conventional 
Mining. Vol. II — Guidlines (contract 
J0100012, MSA Research Corp.). BuMines 
OFR 5(2)-85, Mar. 1983, 70 pp.; NTIS 
PB 85-153336. 



12. Rodgers, S. J. Survey of Past and 
Present Methods Used to Control Respi- 
rable Dust in Noncoal Mines and Ore Pro- 
cessing Mills. Final report (contract 
H0220030, MSA Research Corp. ). BuMines 
OFR 17(l)-75, Apr. 30, 1974, 133 pp. 

13. Singer, J. M. , M. E. Harris, and 
J. Grumer. Dust Dispersal by Explosion- 
Induced Airflow, Entrainment by Air- 
blast. BuMines RI 8130, 1976, 50 pp. 

DUSTS-SPECIFIC 

14. Altekruse, E. B., B. A. Chaudhary, 
M. G. Pearson, and W. K. C. Morgan. 
Kaolin Dust Concentrations and Pneumoco- 
niosis at a Kaolin Mine. Thorax, v. 36, 
No. 6, 1984, pp. 436-441. 

15. Anderson, W. H. , G. L. Hamilton, 
and B. E. Dossett. A Comparison of Coal 
Miners Exposed to Coal Dust and Those 
Exposed to Silica Dust. Am. Med. Assoc. , 
Arch. Environ. Health, v. 1, No. 6, 
1960, pp. 540-547. 

16. Arnold, I. M. J. Quality of Work- 
ing Life in the Mining Industry-a Physi- 
cians 's Prescription. CIM Bull., v. 76, 
No. 850, 1983, pp. 39-42. 

17. Axelson, 0., and A. Sjoberg. 
Cancer Incidence and Exposure to Iron 
Oxide Dust. J. Occup. Med., v. 21, 
No. 6, 1979, pp. 419-422. 

18. Becklake, M. R. , B. Tojata, 
M. Stewart, R. Hanson, and J. Hanley. 
Lung Structure as a Risk Factor in Ad- 
verse Pulmonary Responses to Asbestos Ex- 
posure. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., v. 128, 
No. 3, 1983, pp. 385-388. 

19. Bencko, V., and E. V. Vasileva. 
Hygiene and Toxicological Aspects of 
Occupational and Environmental Exposure 
to Beryllium. J. Hyg. , Epidemiol. , Mi- 
crobiol. , and Immunol., v. 27, No. 4, 
1983, pp. 403-417. 

20. Berlinger, N. T. Inhalant Granu- 
lomas: Silicosis, Asbestosis, Beryl- 
liosis. Otolaryngologic Clinics of 
N. Am., v. 15, No. 3, 1982, pp. 561-567. 

21. Bradshaw, E., N. D. McGlashin, 
D. Fitzgerald, and J. S. Harington. 
Analyses of Cancer Incidence in Black 
Gold Miners from Southern Africa 



16 



(1964-1979). Br. J. Cancer, v. 46, No. 
5, 1982, pp. 737-748. 

22. British Medical Journal. Smoking, 
Coal, Asbestos, and the Lungs. V. 283, 
Aug. 1981, pp. 457-458. 

23. Clark, T. C, V. A. Harrington, 
J. Asta, K. C. Morgan, and E. N. Sargent. 
Respiratory Effects of Exposure to Dust 
in Taconite Mining and Processing. Am. 
Rev. Respir. Dis., v. 121, No. 6, 1980, 
pp. 959-966. 

24. Cooper, W. C, and E. N. Sargent. 
A 26-year Radiographic Follow-Up of 
Workers in a Diatomite Mine and Mill. 
J. Occup. Med., v. 26, No. 6, 1984, 
pp. 456-460. 

25. Cordier, E., G. Theriault, and 
S. Provender. Radiographic Changes In a 
Group of Chrysotile Miners and Millers 
Exposed to Low Asbestos Dust Concentra- 
tions. Br. J. Ind. Med., v. 41, No. 3, 
1984, pp. 383-388. 

26. Cotes, J. E., J. C. Gilson, C. B. 
McKerrow, and P. D. Oldham. A Long-Term 
Follow-Up of Workers Exposed to Beryl- 
lium. Br. J. Ind. Med., v. 40, No. 1, 

1983, pp. 13-21. 

27. Das, B. , N. Khatoon, R. C. 
Sirvastava, P. N. Viswanathan, and 
Q. Rahman. Biochemical Studies on the 
Toxicity of Hematite Dust. Environ. 
Res., v. 32, No. 2, 1983, pp. 372-381. 

28. David, A., J. Hurych, E. Effen- 
bergerova, R . Holusa, J. Simecek, and 
Z. Roth. Laboratory Testing of Biolog- 
ical Activity of Ore Mine Dust: Fibro- 
genicity, Cytotoxicity, and Hemolytic 
Activity. Environ. Res., v. 24, No. 1, 
1981, pp. 140-151. 

29. Dement, J. M. , R. D. Zumwalde, and 
K. M. Wallingford. Discussion Paper: 
Asbestos Fiber Exposures in a Hard Rock 
Gold Mine. Annals of New York Acad. 
Sci., v. 271, May 1976, pp. 345-352. 

30. de Villiers, A. J., and J. P. 
Windish. Lung Cancer in a Fluorspar 
Mining Community. I. Radiation, Dust, 
and Mortality Experience. Br. J. Ind. 
Med., v. 21, 1964, pp. 94-109. 

31. Dupere, J. Asbestos Industry at 
the Crossroads: Current Position and 
Outlook. Min. Eng. (N.Y.), v. 36, No. 7, 

1984, pp. 727-730. 

32. Edenfield, R. W. A Clinical and 
Roentgenological Study of Kaolin Workers. 



Am. Med. Assoc, Arch. Environ. Health, 
v. 1, No. 5, 1960, pp. 392-403. 

33. Eisenbud, M. Commentary and Up- 
date: Chemical Pneumonia in Workers 
Extracting Beryllium Oxide. Cleveland 
Clinic Q. , v. 51, No. 2, 1984, 
pp. 441-447. 

34. Eisenbud, M. , and J. Lisson. Epi- 
demiological Aspects of Beryllium-In- 
duced Nonmalignant Lung Disease: A 30 
Year Update. J. Occup. Med. , v. 25, 
No. 3, 1983, pp. 196-202. 

35. Eyssen, G. M. Development of Ra- 
diographic Abnormality in Chrysotile 
Miners and Millers. Chest, v. 78, No. 2, 
1980 Suppl., pp. 411-414. 

36. Finkelstein, M. , R. Kusiak, and 
G. Suranyi. Mortality Among Miners Re- 
ceiving Workmen's Compensation for Sili- 
cosis in Ontario: 1940-1975. J. Occup. 
Med., v. 24, No. 9, 1982, pp. 663-667. 

37. Glover, J. R. , C. Bevan, J. E. 
Cotes, P. C. Elwood, N. G. Hodges, R. L. 
Kehl, C. R. Lovee, M. McDermott, and 
P. D. Oldham. Effects of Exposure to 
Slate Dust in North Wales. Br. J. Ind. 
Med., v. 37, 1980, pp. 152-162. 

38. Graham, B. L. , J. A. Dosman, D. J. 
Cotton, S. R. Weisstock, V. G. Lappi, 
and F. Froh. Pulmonary Function and 
Respiratory Symptoms in Potash Workers. 
J. Occup. Med., v. 26, No. 3, 1984, 
pp. 209-214. 

39. Gylseth, B., T. Norseth, and 
V. Skaug. Amphibole Fibers in a Taconite 
Mine and in the Lungs of the Miners. Am. 
J. Ind. Med., v. 2, No. 2, 1981, 
pp. 175-184. 

40. Hanke, W. , M. J. Sepulveda, 
A. Watson, and J. Jankovic Respiratory 
Morbidity in Wollastonite Workers. Br. 
J. Ind. Med., v. 41, No. 4, 1984, 
pp. 474-479. 

41. Hardy, H. L. Beryllium Disease. 
A Clinical Perspective. Environ. Res., 
v. 21, No. 1, 1980, pp. 1-9. 

42. Heath, D. , W. Mooi, and P. Smith. 
The Pulmonary Vasculature in Hematite 
Lung. Br. J. Dis. Chest, v. 72, 1978, 
pp. 88-94. 

43. Higgins, I. T. T., J. H. Glassman, 
M. S. Oh, and R. G. Cornell. Mortality 
of Reserve Mining Company Employees in 
Relation to Taconite Dust Exposure. 



17 



Am. J. Epidemiol., v. 118, No. 5, 1983, 
pp. 710-719. 

44. Hooper, W. F. Acute Beryllium 
Lung Disease. NC Med. J. , v. 42, No. 8, 
1981, pp. 551-553. 

45. Johnson, N. R. Beryllium Disease 
Among Workers in a Spacecraft-Manufac- 
turing Plant — California. MMWR, v. 32, 
No. 32, 1983, pp. 419-420, 425. 

46. Kennedy, T., W. Rawlings, Jr., 
M. Baser, and M. Tockman. Pneumoconiosis 
in Georgia Kaolin Workers. Am. Rev. 
Resp. Dis., v. 127, No. 2, 1983, 
pp. 215-220. 

47. Kobusch, A ,-B., A. Simard, M. 
Feldstein, R. Vauclair, G. W. Gibbs, 

F. Bergeron, N. Morissette, and R. Davis. 
Pulmonary Cytology in Chrysotile Asbestos 
Workers. J. Chronic Dis., v. 37, No. 8, 
1984, pp. 599-607. 

48. Liddell, F. D. K. , D. C. Thomas, 

G. W. Gibbs, and J. C. McDonald. Fibre 
Exposure and Mortality From Pneumoconi- 
osis, Respiratory and Abdominal Malignan- 
cies in Chrysotile Production in Quebec, 
1926-75. Annu. Acad. Med. , v. 13, No. 2 
(supp.). 1984, pp. 340-344. 

49. McDonald, J. C, M. A. Becklake, 
G. W. Gibbs, A. D. McDonald, and C. E. 
Rossiter. The Health of Chrysotile As- 
bestos Mine and Mill Workers of Quebec. 
Arch. Environ. Health, v. 28, Feb. 1974, 
pp. 61-68. 

50. McGlashin, N. D. , J. S. Harring- 
ton, and E. Bradshaw. Eleven Sites of 
Cancer in Black Gold Miners From Southern 
Africa: A Geographic Enquiry. Br. J. 
Cancer, v. 46, No. 6, 1982, pp. 947-954. 

51. Mining Engineering. Fresh Coal 
Dust May be a Major Cause of Black Lung 
Disease. V. 37, No. 7, 1985, p. 634. 

52. Morgan, W. K. C. Magnetite Pneu- 
moconiosis. J. Occup. Med. , v. 20, 
No. 11, 1978, pp. 762-763. 

53. Musk, A. W. , J. E. Baker, and 
D. Whitaker. Sputum Asbestos Bodies and 
Radiographic Changes in Residents of 
Wittenoora, Western Australia. Community 
Health Stud., v. 7, No. 1, 1983, 
pp. 19-23. 

54. National Safety News. Asbestos: 
Some Answers. V. 120, No. 1, 1979, 
pp. 51-55. 

55. Olscamp, G. , S. J. Human, and 
G. L. Weisbrod. Nepheline Rock Dust 



Pneumoconiosis. Radiol., v. 142, No. 1, 

1982, pp. 29-32. 

56. Page, S. J., C. W. Urban, and 
J. C. Volkwein. Effectiveness of Wet 
Cutter Bars in Reducing Salt Mine Dust. 
BuMines RI 8512, 1981, 10 pp. 

57. Pham, Q. T., M. Gaertner, J. M. 
Mur, P. Braun, M. Gabiano, and P. Sadoul. 
Incidence of Lung Cancer Among Iron 
Miners. European J. Respir. Dis., v. 64, 
No. 7, 1983, pp. 534-540. 

58. Radford, E. P., and K. G. 
St. Clair. Lung Cancer in Swedish Iron 
Miners Exposed to Low Doses of Radon 
Daughters. The New England J. Med. , v. 
310, No. 23, 1984, pp. 1485-1494. 

59. Robertson, A., J. Dodgson, P. Col- 
lings, and A. Seaton. Exposure to Oxides 
of Nitrogen: Respiratory Symptoms 
and Lung Functions in British Coal 
Miners. Br. J. Ind. Med., v. 41, 1984, 
pp. 214-219. 

60. Roessler, C. E., G. S. Roessler, 
and W. E. Bolch. Indoor Radon Progency 
Exposure in the Florida Phosphate Mining 
Region: A Review. Health Phys., v. 45, 
No. 2, 1983, pp. 389-396. 

61. Rom, W. H., A. Moshell, 
W. Greaves, K. M. Bang, M. Holthauser, 
D. Campbell, and R. Bernstein. A Study 
of Mermatitis in Trona Miners and 
Millers. J. Occup. Med. , v. 25, No. 4, 

1983, pp. 295-299. 

62. Sluis-Cremer, G. K. , and R. S. J. 
DuToit. Asbestos-Related Radiologic 
Changes in Residents of South African 
Amphibole Asbestos Mining Fields and the 
Fibre Contents to Which They May Have 
Been Exposed. IARC Sci. Publ. , v. 30, 
1980, pp. 559-563. 

63. Stern, R. M. Process-Dependent 
Risk of Delayed Health Effects for 
Welders. Environ. Health Perspect., v. 
41, Oct. 1981, pp. 235-253. 

64. Stokinger, H. E. A Review of 
World Literature Finds Iron Oxides Non- 
carcinogenic Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. , 
v. 45, No. 2, 1984, pp. 127-133. 

65. Tanaka, S., A. B. Smith, W. Hal- 
perin, R. J. Mullan, and N. R. Johnson. 
Beryllium Disease. Necessity for Con- 
tinuing Surveillance. Chest, v. 84, 
No. 3, 1983, p. 312. 



18 



66. U. S. General Accounting Office. 
School District Officials Face Problems 
in Dealing With Asbestos in Their 
Schools. GAO/RCED-85-91, Mar. 19, 1985, 
64 pp. 

67. Verma, D. K. , D. C. F. Muir, M. L. 
Stewart, J. A. Julian, and A. C. Ritchie. 
The Dust Content of the Lungs of Hard- 
Rock Miners and Its Relationship to Occu- 
pational Exposure, Pathological and Radi- 
ological Findings. Annu. Occup. Hyg. , 
v. 26, No. 1-4, 1982, pp. 401-409. 

68. Volkwein, J. C, R. P. Vinson, and 

E. D. Thiraons. Effects of Humidity on 
Salt Mine Dust: A Preliminary Report. 
BuMines RI 8519, 1981, 9 pp. 

69. Wagoner, J. K. , R. W. Miller, 

F. E. Lundin, Jr., J. F. Fraumeni , and 
M. E. Haij. Unusual Cancer Mortality 
Among a Group of Underground Metal Min- 
ers. The New England J. Med., v. 269, 
No. 6, 1963, pp. 284-289. 

70. Wegman, D. H. , J. M. Peters, M. G. 
Boundy, and T. J. Smith. Evaluation of 
Respiratory Effects in Miners and Millers 
Exposed to Talc Free of Asbestos and 
Silica. Br. J. Ind. Med., v. 39, 1982, 
pp. 233-238. 

71. Wiles, F. J., J. R. Johnston, 
A. F. LeRoux, and A. R. Churchill. Acute 
Exposure to Gold Mine Dust-A Bronchial 
Challenge Test? Annu. Occup. Hyg. , v. 
26, No. 1-4, 1982, pp. 663-675. 

72. Williams, W. J., and W. R. Wil- 
liams. Value of Beryllium Lymphocyte 
Transformation Tests in Chronic Beryllium 
Disease and in Potentially Exposed 
Workers. Thorax, v. 38, Jan. 1983, 
pp. 41-44. 

DISEASES AND HEALTH 

73. Bomford, A., Y. Lis, I. G. McFar- 
lane, and R. Williams. Variation on the 
Distribution of Two Human Heart Ferritin 
Species. Biochem. J., v. 167, Oct. 1977, 
pp. 309-312. 

74. Boyd, J. T. , R. Doll, J. S. 
Faulds, and J. Lieper. Cancer of the 
Lung in Iron Ore (Haematite) Miners. Br. 
J. Ind. Med., v. 27, 1970, pp. 97-105. 

75. Burtan, R. C. Silicosis: An An- 
cient Malady in a Modern Setting. Min. 
Eng. (N.Y.), v. 36, No. 7, 1984, pp. 731- 
733. 



76. Davis, S. C. , J. L. Balzer, and 
M. A. Raymond. An Industrial Hygiene 
Program for a Surface Mining Operation. 
Min. Congr. J., v. 64, June 1984, 
pp. 47-50. 

77. Doyle, H. N. , V. M. Trasko, W. M. 
Gafafer, and S. E. Miller. Accomplish- 
ments in the Epidemiological Study of 
Silicosis in the United States. Am. Med. 
Assoc. , Arch. Ind. Health, v. 12, 1955, 
pp. 48-55. 

78. Edstrora, H. W. , and D. M. D. Rice. 
"Labrador Lung:" An Unusual Mixed Dust 
Pneumoconiosis. Can. Med. Assoc. J. , v. 
126, No. 1, 1982, pp. 27-30. 

79. Elmes, P. C. Mesothelioma, Min- 
erals, and Man Made Fibers. Thorzax, v. 
35, No. 8, 1980, pp. 561-563. 

80. Ghadially, F. N. , R. J. Schneider, 
and J.-M. A. Lalonde. Haemosiderin De- 
posits in the Human Cornea. J. Submicro- 
scopic Cytology, v. 13, No. 3, 1981, 
pp. 455-464. 

81. Hannon, J. W. G. Pneumoconiosis. 
Ch. in Current Diagnosis, ed. by H. F. 
Conn and R. B. Conn, Jr. W. B. Saunders 
Co., 1980, pp. 263-275. 

82. Hanson, D. Study Criticizes Fed- 
eral Protection of Workers from Illness, 
Injury. Chem. and Eng. News, v. 63, 
No. 17, 1985, pp. 14-15. 

83. Jirasek, L. Occupational Exoge- 
nous Siderosis of the Skin. Contact Der- 
matitis, v. 5, No. 5, 1979, pp. 334-335. 

84. Kearns, M. , and R. McDonald. Gen- 
eralized Siderosis for an Iris Foreign 
Body. Australian J. Optharaology, v. 8, 
No. 4, 1980, pp. 311-313. 

85. Klancko, R. J. The Expanding Role 
of the Industrial Safety Professional. 
Natl. Saf. News, v. 116, No. 6, 1977, 
pp. 84-86. 

86. Langer, A. M. Host Rocks and 
Gangue Minerals in Relation to Pneumoco- 
niosis and Cancer. Am. J. Ind. Med. , 
v. 2, No. 2, 1981, pp. 89-90. 

87. Manfreda, J., G. Sidwell, 
K. Maini, P. West, and R. M. Cherniack. 
Respiratory Abnormalities in Employees of 
the Hard Rock Mining Industry. Am. Rev. 
Respir. Dis., v. 126, No. 4, 1982, 
pp. 629-634. 

88. Messite, J. G. Reddin, and 
M. Kleinfeld. Pulmonary Talcosis, A 
Clinical and Environmental Study. Am. 



19 



Med. Assoc. , Arch. Ind. Health, v. 20, 
No. 5, 1959, pp. 408-413. 

89. Morgis, G. G. , and S. J. Daven- 
port. State Compensatory Provisions for 
Occup. Dis. BuMines IC 7650, 1952, 
125 pp. 

90. Nicholson, D. , and A. D. Bower. 
Pulmonary Medicine. Ch. in Textbook of 
Family Practice, ed. by R. E. Rakel. 
W. B. Saunders Co., 3rd ed. , 1984, 
pp. 363-400. 

91. Olishifski, J. Lung Function and 
Respiratory Protection. Natl. Saf. News, 
v. 118, No. 1, 1978, pp. 47-56. 

92. Peduzzi, R. , and J. C. Piffaretti. 
Ancylostoma Duodenale and the Saint Goth- 
ard Anaemia. Br. Med. J. (Clinical 
Research), v. 287, Dec. 24-31, 1983, 
pp. 1942-1945. 

93. Pinkston, J. W. , W. E. Ballinger, 
Jr., P. R. Lotz, and W. A. Friedman. 
Superficial Siderosis: A Cause of Lepto- 
meningial Enhancement on Computer Tomog- 
raphy. J. Comput. Assisted Tomography, 
v. 7, No. 6, 1983, pp. 1073-1076. 

94. Propper, R. D. , B. Copper, R. R. 
Rufo, A. N. Neinhuis, W. F. Anderson, 
H. F. Bunn, A. Rosenthal, and D. G. Na- 
than. Continuous Subcutaneous Adminis- 
tration of Deferoxamine in Patients With 
Iron Overload. The New England J. Med. , 
v. 297, No. 8, 1977, pp. 418-423. 

95. Schokert, S. S., V. Lakhanpal, and 
S. D. Varma. Siderosis for a Retained 
Intraocular Stone. Retina, v. 1, No. 3, 
1981, pp. 201-207. 

96. Williamson, D. M. Skin Hazards in 
Mining. Br. J. Dermatology, v. 105, 
Suppl. 21, Sept. 1981, pp. 41-44. 

SAMPLING 

97. Burdett, G. J., and A. P. Road. 
Membrane-Filter Direct-Transfer Technique 
for the Analysis of Asbestos Fibers or 
Other Inorganic Particles by Transmission 
Electron Microscopy. Environ. Sci. Tech- 
nol. , v. 17, No. 11, 1983, pp. 643-648. 

98. Carsey, T. P. Quantitation of 
Vanadium Oxides in Airborne Dusts by 
X-Ray Diffraction. Anal. Chem. , v. 57, 
1985, pp. 2125-2130. 

99. Conti, R. S., M. Hertzberg, 
F. T. Duda, and K. L. Cashdollar. Rapid 



Sampling System for Dust and Gases. Rev. 
Sci. Ins t rum. , v. 54, No. 1, 1983, 
pp. 104-108. 

100. Divers, E. F., and J. T. Janosik. 
Scrubbers for Dust Control: A Comparison 
of Six Medium-Energy Use Types. BuMines 
RI 8449, 1980, 29 pp. 

101. Friedlander, S. K. Chemical Ele- 
ment Balances and Identification of Air 
Pollution Sources. Environ. Sci. and 
Technol., v. 7, No. 3, 1983, pp. 235-240. 

102. Gallagher, V. P., W. D. McCunney, 
and J. R. Thornton. Toward the Quanti- 
fication of Visibility. An Annotated 
Bibliography. DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 77- 
202, Jan. 1977, 78 pp. 

103. James, G. C. Developments in 
Dust Collector Technology. Min. Tech- 
nol., v. 65, No. 748, 1983, pp. 54-60. 

104. Kelley, W. D. Threshold Limit 
Values for Chemical Substances in Work- 
room Air. Natl. Saf. News, v. 116, 
No. 3, 1977, pp. 83-84. 

105. Lioy, P. J., M. Lippmann, and 
R. F. Phalen. Rationale for Particle 
Size Selective Air Sampling. Particle 
Size-Selective Sampling in the Workplace, 
Ch. in Ann. Am. Conf. Ind. Hyg. , v. 11, 
1984, pp. 27-34. 

106. Mine Safety and Health Adminis- 
tration. Sampling for respirable Dust — 
Coal. MSHA IG 35, Oct. 1980, 129 pp. 

107. Phalen, R. F. Introduction and 
Recommendations. Particle Size-Selective 
Sampling in the Workplace Ch. in Ann. Am. 
Conf. Ind. Hyg., v. 11, 1984, pp. 23-26. 

108. Staff. U.S. Mine Enforcement 
Safety Administration (now MSHA) Gravi- 
metric Mass Respirable Dust Sampling — 
Metal and Nonmetal Mining Industry. 
MESA IG 33, June 1977, 53 pp. 

109. Vinson, R. P., J. C. Volkwein, 
and E. D. Thiraons. SF 6 Tracer Gas Test 
of Bagging-Machine Hood Enclosures. Bu- 
Mines RI 8527, 1981, 10 pp. 

110. Watts, W. F., Jr., D. R. Parker, 
R. L. Johnson, and K. L. Jensen. Analy- 
sis of Data on Respirable Quartz Dust 
Samples Collected in Metal and Nonmetal 
Mines and Mills. BuMines IC 8967, 1984, 
28 pp. 



1088 476 



20 



STANDARDS 

111. Eisenbud, M. Origins of the 
Standards for Control of Beryllium Dis- 
ease (1947-1949). Environ. Res., v. 27, 
No. 1, 1982, pp. 79-88. 

112. National Institute for Occupa- 
tional Safety and Health. Dinitro- 
toluenes (DNT). Current Intelligence 
Bull. 44, DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 85-109, 
July 5, 1985, 22 pp. 

113. . Ethylene Oxide (ETO). 

Current Intelligence Bull. 35, DHHS 
(NIOSH) Publ. No. 81-130, May 22, 1981, 
22 pp. 

114. . Ethylene Thiourea. Cur- 
rent Intelligence Bull. 22, DHEW (NIOSH) 
Publ. No. 78-144, Apr. 11, 1978, 7 pp. 

115. . Monohalomethanes. Methyl 

Chloride CH 3 C1. Methyl Bromide CH 3 Br. 
Methyl Iodide CH 3 I. Current Intelligence 
Bull. 43, DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 84-117, 
Sept. 27, 1984, 22 pp. 

116. . Recommended Standard for 

Occupational Exposure to Chlorine 1979, 
9 pp. 

117. . Recommended Standard for 

Occupational Exposure to Chromium (VI). 
1979, 8 pp. 

118. . Recommended Standard for 

Occupational Exposure to Fibrous Glass. 
DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 77-152, 1977, 
8 pp. 



119. National Institute for Occupa- 
tional Safety and Health. Revised Rec- 
ommended Asbestos Standard. DHEW (NIOSH) 
Publ. No. 77-169, Dec. 1976, 96 pp. 

120. . Vibration Syndrome. Cur- 
rent Intelligence Bull. 38, DHHS (NIOSH) 
Publ. No. 83-110, May 29, 1983, 21 pp. 

121. . Workplace Exposure to As- 
bestos. DHHW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 81-103, 
Nov. 1980, 39 pp. 

122. National Safety News. TLV's 
Threshold Limit Values for Physical 
Agents. V. 116, No. 4, 1977, pp. 65-71. 

123. Stuart, B. 0., P. J. Ling, and 
R. F. Phalen. Use of Size Selection in 
Establishing TLV's. Ch. in Particle 
Size-Selective Sampling in the Workplace, 
in Ann. Am. Conf. Ind. Hyg. , v. 11, 1984, 
pp. 85-96. 

124. U.S. Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare. NIOSH Mining Surveil- 
lance: Potentially Toxic Occupational 
Exposures. May 1979, 19 pp. 

125. Vandergrift, E. F. Meeting OSHA 
Regulations on Toxic Exposures. Chem. 
Eng. , v. 87, June 1980, pp. 69-73. 

126. Weil, C. S. Some questions and 
Opinions on Issues in Toxicology and Risk 
Assessment. Ann. Am. Conf. Ind. Hyg. , v. 
11, 1984, pp. 3-13. 



U.S. GOVERNEMTN PRINTING OFFICE: 1987 605 017 60043 



INT.-BU.0F MINES,PGH.,PA. 28483 



U.S. Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Mine*— Prod, and Di»tr. 
Cochrans Mill Road 
P.O. Box 18070 
Pittsburgh. Pa. 15236 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. O00 



| J Do not wi sh to receive thi s 
material, please remove 
from your mailing list* 
"2 Address change. Please 
correct as indicated* 



AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 



*<y 



5°^ 




^f 







- ^6* 




*^6* 







• • * .V 
















'oV° 



'bK 



■T. *W •^ffif: «bv* /£^W. *W 






VV 






G v *o. *^V A <> 



** v \ 



vv 




••• /\AHK- ♦♦*% ^§p?: /~\ -.j^.- * 
*° %Sik* /->^\ ^/isfe - ^ 



K oV 



r ^o^ 







..« <G 




* * £ *a • m us* . v 








V^ 1 






o . . - ,G V *o. *-T7T* .A 

0°^ .iSJl*>o ./ -^ 















^ 










.*>*»>. 
.^ *■ 






y>A '.^vs-.- **'>* ^ot?; ^"^ '.^li^. , ^'-^ "oTOW* .^' ^ • 



'b, %TVV v ^ 



o..- .g^ \». */rrT» a <.'»..* .g v *o **r" a ^ '»..• .g v ^ .... - v 











X^ V./ ;«&•- %.^ :iSiS&i-. ^/ /Jfe'* %^ \/ :&\ 






V'< 


















* .4 









*°V • 












'• °- ^\<i&% o°*^.* yV^k-%. 




"*-o 







:\/ 











«.T.»" .0? V'* 



tW-. ^o« c 




o*C^>o 







V 



*fe. 











V \3 'o . » * A * 1 







| » - < • 1 "^'s. * > 






















4 o^ 

_^ 




j^r. 




M 








